Sheriffs, States and the Supreme Court

A bad law can become a cancer. An unconstitutional federal law that goes unchecked is a cancer that has found it’s way to the lymph nodes. It makes it infinitely tougher to treat. But you must treat it, or you will die.

As Sheriffs across the country reflect on how to address a future that may ask them to participate in firearm registration and confiscation schemes more are saying with clarity “not my department”. To arrive at this position, I suspect they must have considered where their loyalties lie.

Are they loyal to their local communities, state constitutions and the U.S. Constitution as written, or do they find themselves compelled to uphold arbitrary federal laws that demand a top-down obedience to politician’s whims? There is needed money in the form of grants for those towing the federal line to consider. They find themselves stuck between a moral rock and an economic hard place.

I believe some sheriffs have been inspired to stand on moral grounds by the ruling in the Supreme Court case Printz v. U.S. from 1997 that protected state officers from a federal law that attempted to mandate Brady bill participation. Scalia’s summary states:

“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State’s officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed. It is so ordered.”

In this ruling, sheriffs can find comfort in a federal opinion that supports their power to reject, at their discretion, the enforcement of a federal law and the legal cover it provides. While this ruling prohibits federal legislation from commandeering state officers, it is important to note that Sheriffs do not require permission from a federal court to say “no” to enforcing unconstitutional laws. In the same way states do not require federal permission to nullify unconstitutional laws.

In the above opinion, Scalia used the term “dual sovereignty”, stating that “such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.” Dual sovereignty is the sharing of power between our federal branch of government and the various state branches.

As an elected state official, Sheriffs are required to uphold their duties outlined in their state constitution in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. Naturally, as federal legislation oversteps its Constitutional bounds a conflict is created that forces state officers into the unenviable position of choosing to enforce unconstitutional mandates disguised as law, or honor their oath.

Federal attempts at limiting firearm access to law-abiding citizens is an especially polarizing issues and provides clarity. When considering gun rights, the founders drafted the second amendment to place absolute restraint on the federal government’s ability to legislate gun laws, saying “shall not be infringed”. The bill of rights is a limit on federal authority. States have more leeway as exemplified by the the Texas constitution’s position on gun regulation. Notice that this state constitution does allow for specific regulations, but through state law, not federal law (Texas State Constitution, Article I, Section 23):

“Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.”

Today, Sheriff’s in most states can take a position of “no, thanks” to unconstitutional federal laws targeting guns without much legal controversy from federal or state proponents. Even the Supreme Court agrees that state officers cannot be compelled to enforce a federal act. In fact, the feds cannot make a state enforce even a truly constitutional act. State officers have the option of assisting the feds or not, in all cases. In other words, the federal government’s position on saying “no” is in alignment with the sovereign state governments.

Of course this scenario with regards to saying “no” is ideal, as all parties agree. But what happens if federal gun laws are passed that violate the constitution in a “palpable and dangerous” way and the state officer becomes duty bound to interpose, as opposed to simply refusing to act? What happens when the Sheriff must take action to stop the unconstitutional act? Federal legislation requiring registration or confiscation of firearms might provide such a catalyst.

Such a situation would put sheriffs, and the people of this country in a awkward position. Law-abiding citizens, who realize the dangers of allowing central governments to possess a monopoly on gun ownership, could find themselves relabeled as criminals overnight simply for holding their property and demanding federal adherence to a Constitution that is crystal clear on the federal government’s authority to affect gun ownership. The federal government and its courts have no authority to place state officers and citizens in such a precarious position.

There is a lawful solution to such a scenario to be found in state-level nullification. If the Sheriffs take the first step in saying “no, thanks”, then states, through nullification, must provide the ability to say “no way” and “get out”.

To tackle this we must first understand the supremacy clause, which states that the Constitution is the law of the land and federal law is supreme when the law is constitutional. This means that a federal law must fall within the tight confines of the enumerated powers of the Constitution, or it is null and void. This is a simple concept that is clearly stated as such in the Constitution; but many distort this and make the claim that any federal law, regardless of constitutionality, automatically becomes the law of the land. That’s simply incorrect, the law must be constitutional.

In addition, the Constitution itself does not grant the judicial branch of the general government any authority to rule on the constitutionality of a federal law over the judgements of the sovereign states. The Constitution does not designate that a Supreme Court ruling saying “you will” is any more legitimate that a sovereign state saying “we will not” or “you will not enforce that here”.

James Madison confirms:

“But it is objected, that the judicial authority is to be regarded as the sole expositor of the Constitution in the last resort; and it may be asked for what reason the declaration by the General Assembly, supposing it to be theoretically true, could be required at the present day, and in so solemn|a manner.

Become a member and support the TAC!

On this objection it might be observed, first, that there may be instances of usurped power, which the forms of the Constitution would never draw within the control of the judicial department; secondly, that, if the decision of the judiciary be raised above the authority of the sovereign parties to the Constitution, the decisions of the other departments, not carried by the forms of the Constitution before the judiciary, must be equally authoritative and final with the decisions of that department. But the proper answer to the objection is, that the resolution of the General Assembly relates to those great and extraordinary cases, in which all the forms of the Constitution may prove ineffectual against infractions dangerous to the essential rights of the parties to it. The resolution supposes that dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the judicial department, also, may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution; and, consequently, that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution, to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority as well as by another–by the judiciary as well as by the executive, or the legislature.”

As a check on power at the federal level, the state’s ratified a Constitution that included very specific, limited powers for the federal government. Clearly, the Supreme Court is authorized by the Constitution to rule on the application of laws that fall within the bounds of the enumerated powers, but that is a different matter than ruling on whether the laws themselves are constitutional.

Jefferson warned of a supreme court with such a power:

“…To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…and their power is more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruption of time and party, its members would become despots….”

When authority taken by the federal government falls outside of the enumerated powers, it makes no sense to ask the federal government to rule on whether the federal government has the power or not. Politicians continue to pass legislation counter to the bill-of-rights and then they run to the Supreme Court for validation, and conclude “see, its all good, or crazy infringements have been approved by those that we appointed, now turn ‘em over.” As historian Tom Woods points out, if the federal government is allowed to hold a monopoly on determining the extent of its own powers, we have no right to be surprised when it keeps discovering new ones.

Discovering the authority to register or confiscate firearms is the whisper in the halls. It is not within the parameters of the original design to allow the federal government to discover such inventions and claim authority. Our system is unique because the states are authorized as parallel sovereign governments and thus empowered to provide a strong check on federal malintent. When states and state officers disagree with the constitutionality of federal laws, then they are “duty bound to resist” according to Madison. They are required by conscious to nullify such laws and deny the enforcement in their state.

I’d suggest that the increasing number of Sheriffs that refuse to comply (225 and the time of this writing) and the growing number of State’s that are introducing second amendment nullification legislation (15 at this time) is a testament to this message. It is a natural migration from one check on power, (the three branches in the federal government), to another (the dynamic between state government and the federal government). It’s a vote of “no confidence” on the federal government’s ability to restrain itself.

Saying “no way” and “get out” is sometimes necessary. For those uncomfortable with a little confrontation, relax, it’s just “we the people” using the checks and balances provided by our founders to demand liberty as guaranteed by the Constitution.

@whitemcky Now you see the purpose for a “State Militia” … A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (so lets see, the people keep and bear their own arms, arms equivelent in destructive power, which are able to meet and defeat federal arms (aka national guard), and the state regulates the training and call up of that milita in time of need…. hmmm… no… as the anti gun crowd says…. we only need muskets and 9 balls of ammo… that should stop the mational guard in their tracks!).

Can someone source the Jefferson quote; “If the federal government is allowed to hold a monopoly on determining the extent of its own powers, we have no right to be surprised when it keeps discovering new ones”. I can’t seem to find any reference to it in the literature. Many thanks!

Jim, I apologize. You are right that that was incorrect and should have been attributed to Tom Woods from a 2010 article where he also wrote:

….that the states created the federal government, which they obviously did, and that as a principal to the federal compact each state reserves the right – if I may quote Jefferson himself – to “judge for itself, as well of infractions [of the Constitution] as of the mode and measure of redress.” Otherwise, the federal government will expand without limit.

@brian5150 No problem. I liked the quote and wanted to use it but have learned to my embarrassment not to quote the Founders without checking the source. Too many famous 18th and early 19th century quotes seem to have originated in the 20th century The article was excellent regardless. Thank you!

Brian,
Bad law is so wide spread it is common practice over common law. The Sheriffs, these states and the supreme courts all operate as a corporate entity. So does the united states Corporation, so what does corporate law say about these entities, do they have to comply to the laws they create for all other ?

Who really is authorization? You because you wrote down all these words in a perfect form as you were taught? Isn’t all this law crap here simply by bad agreements by the lack of understanding versus good old abundance of understandings?

I am an independent deciding and I agree with none of it except my Declaration of Independence which is my decision to be as such and only enter into or out of agreement I want to by such an act.

The fact that none of these made up fictitious laws support life and only support corporatism by pure examples that we may deny all we want but these examples exists loudly.

When do we start being real with ourselves and then approach these matters. Independence after all is a way of living and deciding and a lot different way of deciding than what is being shared.

Constitutional limits are just that, liberty by design because before we declared Independence the old way was much like today and is the WHY for such a revolution, a new way unlike the old way, to be in charge of deciding what is right and wrong and to not have it done for me. If I use what was given in the Document described my basis for choice is defined as my personal guide post. I am authorized to decide and enter into agreements and I am authorized to break out or get out of agreements that become altered in any form and that folks is independent living and deciding unlike all your written made up authorizations that are only good for you because you make them or agree to them upon your own choice and it it is strictly yours.

Maybe you need a better understanding of Laws of nature as well independent living?

I like your comment but you are very hard to understand. Some of which I can’t make heads or tails of. Please proof read your comment before posting so everyone can make sense of what you are trying to say.

I don’t have much confidence in these sheriffs who defy federal mandates; even tho they may sincerely take their oath of office seriously.
All city, county and state employees are enrolled in various “Public Employee Retirement Systems” (PERS). These PERS allow grunt bureaucrats to retire with $4,000 to $6,000 checks each month for the rest of their lives; and, when they die, the checks go to their spouses (I’m not sure about children). Department heads and judges can retire with monthly checks of $12,000 to $20,000. See, http://redressone.wordpress.com/of-lords/.
The same is true for public school teachers and university staff and faculty.
All derived from tax collections.
Now, compare that to the pot of gold available to private workers (those who make the above possible): the return of stolen goods by the Social Security System. This might be $1,200 to $1,500 per month.
Is that gratitude… or what?
Additionally, every city, county and state in the Union derives 30% to 50% of its revenue from the central government.
Put these facts together… and what do you get? It’s a constitution of convenience.
If a sheriff refuses to obey a command from Congress, he runs the risk of losing his office, losing largess paid to his county from the central thief, or losing his pension checks.
Thus, we have a constitution that will be strictly construed if it favors aggrandizement of power; if it doesn’t, it won’t.

Sadly the flip side of this is….. that most every sheriffs department in the country is criminal and runs around kidnapping, stealing from, putting into cages, and murdering citizens enforcing the unconstitutional drug war. Who protects us from the Sheriffs?

the fight here will become the begining of this civil disturbance. Sheriffs i work with are saying that sites like mine are being used by law enforcemnet in areas who believe that the people and sheriffs are the major defense struture in the states. http://constitutionalsheriffs.ning.com/ yes we can tell others about the wrongness of county law enforecement but if you dont participate then you are part of the problem.

While all this rhetoric may have merit, the test will be one of force. Sooner or later the feds are going to try to enforce their decrees. Maybe they will start with the marijuana laws or with guns but, it will come. I believe they will do it one state at a time, probably starting with Tennessee or Oklahoma (the two states that seem to have found hind legs on which to stand) to set an example. To the extent they use force and coercion to accomplish this will determine who will and who will not stand for the constitution.
Those who put the value of their paycheck over the value of the constitution, I believe, will cave. Threats of detention will cull others. A further number will succumb to bribery. The patriots may become penniless and, if caught, confined.
The question to ask is: Do you have faith that your sheriff will stand up to those who will use federal leverage against him? I live in Wisconsin and, looking around, sadly don’t see a Sheriff conservative enough with the required intestinal fortitude to stand firm. Hopefully, I’m wrong.
If the answer to the question about your sheriff is ‘no’ then you have to ask if you are willing to stand against this infringement by the feds either alone or with you neighbors?
That path will be extraordinarily rough because, it seems to me, that we are so dependent upon the feds that I doubt that enough people can be found to stymie this push for further power. We all use federal currency for our transactions and our wealth can now be erased with the click of a computer key, the feds confiscate our labor (money, wealth) through our tax withholding system before we even see it, federal monies are doled out to our school systems and local and state governments as a control on their behavior (does the 55mph speed limit ring a bell?) and those on social security who have had their labor confiscated lo these many years will be left without that check which, in some cases, is a sole income source. No, I seriously doubt that the line can be held.
For people to be able to stand against the fed they will have to come up with other ways of feeding and caring for their families which means getting off the grid. They will have to invent their own trading systems so that they can obtain those things necessary to live, learn to do without luxuries and become more self sufficient in their habits. The public also has to refuse to use the banknotes issued by the government and resort to hard currency.
The only way to choke this snake is to withhold your labor (money, wealth) en mass. That is what they live on. First they take it away from you, then they return some of it. The patriot has to be able and willing to withhold that labor (money, wealth), that’s the only way. (I have long advocated the funneling of all taxes extorted from the citizens through the state. If the state passed a law stating that they and they alone were the only ‘collectors’ of taxes within the state they could receive the taxes from their citizens and dole out the amount OUR STATE LEGISLATORS deemed necessary for the feds to run the national government. THAT would be state control.)
Finally, I feel such sorrow for the way this country has turned out. We started out with those representing us seriously interested in the rights of the citizens. What we have now is a group of people re-elected each term on the basis of the amount of labor they can steal from some citizens to deliver to others. Citizen and states rights? That is a concept that has seemingly fallen by the wayside.

I sure am glad sheriffs are standing up to the nuts in DC, and I’m glad states are starting to stand up to DC as well.

Here’s a disturbing subject that is _bound_ to come up during all the various nullification efforts. I know it will, because the federal government has used it as a way of manipulating states for many decades now, and if we don’t find a way to effectively deal with it, all this will be for nothing. The subject I’m talking about is one many of you are already aware of : The federal government uses the income tax money from the people of the various states as a way of _controlling_ the states. Specifically, the federal government uses our own tax money against us by refusing to allot “federal funds” (which are composed of our tax money) to states when those states refuse to dance to the tune of the federal government.

Here’s an idea on how the problem might be dealt with. The idea isn’t mine. I’m just passing it along. A few years back, I read somewhere that someone in, I _think_ it might have been Colorado, tried to pass a bill (state level) that would have changed the way income taxes are paid to the IRS in that state. The gist of it was that if passed, the bill would have required all citizens of that state, instead of paying their income tax straight to the IRS, to make the state a sort of “middle man”, meaning the people would give the tax money to the state, then the state would give the money to the IRS. The point of this being that the next time the federal government refuses to give federal funds to the state based on the states refusal to do things the federal government would like for them to do, but which the state is not constitutionally required to do, the state can then simply withhold that amount of money from the next years IRS payment. Sounds like an interesting idea to me, as it would largely neuter the ability of the nuts in DC to use bribery to manipulate the states actions the way they’ve been doing for decades now. Of course there would be a huge outcry from the left, but who cares? They’re the enemy in the first place. This country is out of money and the pied piper is leading the liberal fools of this nation straight to their own doom. Time to stop playing Mr nice guy, and start hitting them where it counts. _Money_. Once that’s dealt with, telling them to get screwed on other subjects will be a simple matter. Does anyone here remember hearing of the bill I’m talking about? Obviously, it went nowhere at the time it was originally introduced, but given the terrible state of the economy now, I think that bill’s time may have come.

If that bill wouldn’t be workable, I guess the only fix would be to repeal the 16th amendment.

Until one thing or the other is done, the states are gonna have a hard time fighting, cause money talks.

Some very important things to note here. First, why would you or anyone for that matter believe that these sheriffs will refuse to enforce this unConstitutional law when they currently enforce too many to count which are also unConstitutional? The sheriffs will roll over like good dogs and put up no fight against their benefactor. They have no spine, they have no conscience, they have no morals, they have no qualms about abusing the authority they do have and will continue to act in their own best interests. Please remember people, these sheriffs are the same people who continue to allow things like the “war on drugs” to continue when most people including them know that it is a war on the citizens of this country. That it is a completely unCOnstitutional group of laws used to fleece individuals and their families through force, intimidation and fraud. No the sheriffs will not say no to the federal government. They are too deeply in bed with their misuse of authority and fraudulent actions when evicting homeowners from a house the bank tells them to when the bank has broken countless federal lending laws and the sheriffs know this. Sheriffs are nothing more than lackeys for the judicial branch and the judicial branch has been bought by the banks along with the legislative and executive branches. Trust me on this one, do not trust any employee of any government agency, they only care about themselves. And that means they will stand up for their own. If the sheriffs oppose the coming (and it will come people) unConstitutional act or whatever they decide to label it as, they will only do so very briefly. They will give in to something the feds whisper in their ears and once one turns tail, so will the rest.
Another thing to consider is this. These people are professional liars. It is what they do for a living. It is what they have always done and always will do . They lie. They lie when you talk to them in any official capacity. They always think we are lying to them no matter what so they naturally lie to us about everything.
Do not trust them. Do not trust them. Do not trust them. AT ALL. EVER. THEY ARE LIARS.

@mlk12
Not sure I agree, saying they are all one in the same is not so. Some sheriffs are down to earth, I know I have met a few in my life. Many want good mutual respect and I cannot blame them.

Yes the war on drugs is all wrong, but some of us are talking to sheriffs about this subject because it needs to be discussed in a civil manner.

There are unconstitutional laws in the Constitution so lets not get crazy and stop giving it any other authority than it has. It is to limit public servants and that is all it is for, it is not a writ of right away.

Instead of hating all sheriffs start really talking to them, many want to talk believe it or not. Try meeting them in their office and doing your part to make them aware. They have families and friends in the same town you live in and you need to understand this, they sure do.

All trust relationships are built, they don’t just fall out of the sky and you have half of the responsibility to initiate this activity, think about it.

@mlk12 I agree. The “sheriffs” have been upholding unconstitutional Federal drug laws for decades. I have personally witnessed countless police intentionally manipulating traffic conditions simply to increase local revenue. Most cops I know would LOVE to see a disarmed citizenry. To simply start trusting them now seems very reckless, to me.

At this point, I don’t trust ANY person in a position of political authority over me. I certainly don’t see them as my friends.

The critical fact about Sheriffs, as opposed to Police Chiefs or Commissioners, is that Sheriffs are elected by local folks. Police chiefs and (in larger cities, Police Commissioners) are hired by Mayors. That is why you see the head law enforcement officers of San Diego, NY and Baltimore echoing the Mayors of those cities positions on gun control. Starkest example is in Milwaukee: the Sheriff of Milaukee County is pro gun ownership (even put out a video telling the citizens to arm themselves) and the Chief of Police of Milwaukee (Dem mayor) is pro gun control.

Lets see if i can explain this in 10,000 words or less
We are at a crossroad. the Emperor has tlold us that he can kill any american he wants and call any one anything he wants. to me this becomes a despotic Tyranny. Now to what lengths are we going to accept this?
and what is my power? is it in the Federal document(Constitution) or the State document (Constitution) or the bill of rights wich in 1833 by the decree of Chief Justice John Marshall said in his brief that the Bill of rights was a State document not a Federl one.
We people seem to forget that the Federal document was between the Feds and the States the Bill of rights was an addendum to the Constitution but not at the federal level but at rthe states. What does this mean?? Well heres one mans thoughts born out by Suprenme court decisions Barron Vs Baltimore. where in there is a seperation from the people and its servants The Federal government . but we the dummies have been trying to become federal citizens from 1868 and the formation of the 14th amendmentr which took us out of the republic and made us a *sic* Democracy two wolves and one sheep voting whats for supper.
the 2nd amendment > the most important amendment we have now under attack because weve lost all the others and this one they know will be the hardest to take from us.
AKA Police State, NDAA, Patriot act ,Homeland Security . all have been put into place for just this moment. Now who is our benefactor?
God, The Prodestants? Movie industry? can you name any potential heros?
Well it boils don to us You see you probably know this but the Sheriff is us

And its up to is to train him. for if we dont the federal Government will and i betcha they dont train him our way. forget about national elections they are ours any more. They belong to our coming oppressors.
like for instance th obama Act now most of the people are working less than 40 hours because the companies are attacked with massive taxes if you work 40 hours in fact you can only work 30 hours and ytou have to buy your insurance and by 2016 that will amount to 20 thousand dollars per year.

Quite a bargain isnt it? you make less and have to pay more. Well i want a county that i and my people along with sheriffs and our posse’s and militias tell them to go away. this can be donme because our power was in outr counties all along!
the Sheriffs are theree to protect us by usingg us in posse’s and ,ilitias to help him ptrotect us. but most of you dont get it. you think the governewmtn messedit up now they must fix it. the only thing they will do ius build you concentration cmps like Hitler did for his people//
am iI undestood do i need to go into this further like Twining vs or heller Vs how about the insiular cases they tell it all 2nd amendment > your citizenship
Its there all you gotta do is read it.

I as an Oath Keeper, a Patriot and a Constitutionalist, have for the past year or so, been reaching out to the 63 Sheriffs in NYS. My objective at first, was to seek their membership with us as an Oath Keeper.
Having sent out three letters to each one by E-mail, I then made an attempt to all, by letters sent by regular mail.
It remains an enigma as to how many I successfully brought to our group. In the midst of this there came the horrors of Sandy Hook and my objectives changed from not just reaching out to them for membership but this time with the added plea for help in their keeping their oaths and joining with patriot New Yorkers in repealing the SAFE ACT.
We now had at stake the threats to our Second Amendment and I as a gun owner and fighter to keep our Bill of Rights intact, asked of these same sheriffs, all Oath Takers, to help in our quest.
This has been done with astounding results and I am proud to have been a part of what may some day be in our books of history.
There is a large portion of these men, the highest form of law enforcement in the land, and also the oldest of all the LEOS, in our nation, who have signed on with us and the remainder are pending or abstaining.
These would be the two who are appointed and not elected and one elected from Oneida County. His stance is a wait and see attitude and will go with whatever is the final outcome following the court decision even if it is un-Constitutional. He will not stand down to any given orders even if they be un-Constitutional as well.
We as Oath Keepers will not obey and law or order that does not abide by the Constitution.
If you are a resident of Oneida County please join with the large and growing group of those who are appalled at the decision of their sheriff. If you are a gun owner and a responsible one your right to do so will soon become a passing thing if the courts rule as your Sheriff hopes.
He is a middle of the roader waiting to see which side he kisses ass for first. You as his constituents who elected him have within your power to show you are WE THE PEOPLE and let him know you will take steps to have him removed from office if he refuses to obey what you ask of him.
This is your chance to stand up and be heard and become a part of history. It would also be beneficial for you to join Oath Keepers and continue the fight for our rights in a non-militant fashion. oathkeepers.org
MOLON LABE AND FOR THE REPUBLIC…